An appeals court has rejected an unfair competition lawsuit against Redtube. …

One day in March of 2009, the proprietors of Redtube.com were minding their own business, streaming free pornographic videos to the public, when they received notice of a lawsuit against them in the mail.

"The ubiquitous distribution of free adult videos through redtube.com has had a massive negative impact on the business model of adult website proprietors," charged the complaint against Redtube owner Bright Imperial Limited of Hong Kong. "Now that consumers have the ability to watch high quality adult videos for free on redtube.com, fewer are making the choice to pay other adult website proprietors for the same content."

Thus, Redtube.com has caused "many millions of dollars of damages to proprietors of adult entertainment websites," including those of the plaintiff in this instance, one Kevin Cammarata of Los Angeles, California. This, he charged, was a violation of California's Unfair Practices Act.

"The publication of a video on the Internet, whether it depicts teenagers playing football or adult entertainment qualifies as 'conduct in furtherance of... free speech," the court ruled last week. "...All of Cammarata's causes of action arise from Bright's conduct of placing speech on the Internet where it can be viewed for free by the public. This is the 'predatory pricing' that Cammarata complains of."

The judges also took a look at the Redtube business model, and after a fascinating review of the history of broadcasting and the Internet, rejected the plaintiffs unfair competition claims.

Loss leader?

Welcome to the "tube" industry, a genus of raunchy online content sites that includes... well, just type "sex" and "tube" in a search engine and you'll be on your way.

Like any of these venues, Redtube doesn't post free nookie flicks as a philanthropic gesture. Many of the short films on the site are owned and distributed by pay portals like Brazzers and Bangbros, which advertise and convert Redtube watchers into buyers of the longer versions. Also involved in the venture are live chat services like Fling.com and Friendfinder, which banner heavily on Redtube's pages.

So although Redtube's videos are "free," the venue functions as a search engine and preview for these pay sites. They send Redtube a commission fee every time someone forks over credit card money for their services—or, consumers can access some of this content via paid premium subscriptions available on Redtube itself.

Cammarata both admitted and denied this reality in his lawsuit. "Initially redtube.com featured only adult entertainment videos for free," the filing acknowledged. "Now, Bright still displays streaming videos for free on redtube.com, however, it advertises a 'premium' subscription that permits additional capabilities, such as downloading the videos."

But the complaint still insisted that the real motive behind this business model was anti-competitive. Redtube's videos function as "loss leader" bait, he charged—super low price items designed primarily to take away business from other pay sites, a violation of the Unfair Practices law.

"These defendants are selling and giving articles or products, namely adult entertainment videos, at less than the cost of such videos to such defendants, for the purpose of injuring competitors and destroying competition," including Cammarata. This entitled him to "injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys' fees," he thought.

Brought to their knees?

The Appeals Court's ruling showed some initial sympathy for the plaintiff. Cammarata's grievance is common among porn producers, the three-judge panel noted. "According to one adult entertainment executive, the formerly profitable subscription-based websites 'have been brought to their knees' by the tube-based sites," they observed without a wink.

But the justices could find no evidence that Redtube's marketing strategy had anything to do with putting the plaintiff out of business:

If Bright's business model sounds familiar it's because it's the business model typical of broadcast radio and television stations in the United States not to mention thousands of local newspapers and, more recently, tens of thousands of Internet websites including YouTube, CNN and Yahoo.

The undisputed evidence showed that Bright obtains most of the videos it shows on Redtube free of charge from advertisers who pay Bright to display their videos containing their ads. Fundamentally, there is no difference between Redtube and a radio station in the early 1900s that broadcasted records it obtained for free from a music store and, in return, told its listeners where the records could be purchased. (See www.oldradio.com/current/bc_spots.htm; last visited Dec. 7, 2010.) In both cases the broadcaster's purpose is not to destroy competition or a competitor but to attract patrons to its broadcast site where they will, hopefully, respond to its advertisers' messages.

Thus were Cammarata's charges dismissed not only against Redtube proper, but against Bangbros, Brazzers, Friendfinder, and other Redtube partners whom he also sued.

Bottom line: "If Cammarata's subscription-based website lost revenue after Redtube and other tube-based websites came on the scene it was because the tube-based business model is more efficient, not because of alleged predatory pricing by Bright," the court concluded.

Well judged case. Basically the plaintiff had no idea what the business plan of RedTube was, or he decided that the only way to fix his own broken business plan was to sue.

Also:

Quote:

Thus, Redtube.com [owned by Bright Imperial Limited of Hong Kong] has caused "many millions of dollars of damages to proprietors of adult entertainment websites," including those of the plaintiff in this instance, one Kevin Cammarata of Los Angeles, California. This, he charged, was a violation of California's Unfair Practices Act.

Really? Not sure if the state of California has jurisdiction over a business based in Hong Kong.

Redtube kinda sucks.. Youporn is hundred times better, you can view full movies and you can download them unilimitedly, in flv, iPad and iPhone format.

Back to the article.. I'm happy with the ruling.. Paying to watch free porn is unneccessary.

Everyone's looking for a way to get the genie of 'free' content back into the bottle, so it becomes a valuable commodity once again. Hence the Hail Mary lawsuits like this.

Although it bears remembering there is no free ride, and that goes for porn, too: YouPorn was sued in CA in Dec 2009 over their practice of 'history sniffing' via a JavaScript exploit (where browsing history allows advertisers to determine where their advertising dollars are best spent).

As long as the videos are not taken from random sites and then posted on the tube sites *by the operators* I totally support the sites.

But from what I hear, I think its either bangbros or Brazzers who also own a tube site and they put competitors videos up for free (full versions not snippets) while only showing snippets of their movies - that is a new low of scummy, even for pornographers , almost on par with the music industry.

While the plaintiff found the verdict hard to swallow, I'm quite sure he'll find another way to penetrate the market. If not, the ending may be a bit premature for his business; regardless, I hope in the end both parties can come out satisfied. In all seriousness, you cannot expect for someone else to not find a better way to do a business that will get more clients. People like free. They always have.

In the name of "research", I've seen some of these sites. The answer is VERY simple for the paid sites, though it's going to raise their costs:

-Camcorder videos are no longer good enough. HD lifelike film quality is a MUST. That homemade shit doesn't cut it anymore!-Lose the skanks! Get women that are so naturally beautiful that you can't believe they're doing porn! Don't tell me these ladies are hard to find. I mean if you look, it's literally MIND BLOWING how many women these days are willing to do it. I had no idea the industry had become that large.

While the plaintiff found the verdict hard to swallow, I'm quite sure he'll find another way to penetrate the market. If not, the ending may be a bit premature for his business; regardless, I hope in the end both parties can come out satisfied. In all seriousness, you cannot expect for someone else to not find a better way to do a business that will get more clients. People like free. They always have.

HAHA, surely the best written Ars comment of all time.

I also echo the comments that redtube is not very good. My personal favourite is xhamster.

Lose the skanks! Get women that are so naturally beautiful that you can't believe they're doing porn!

++ to infinity

You can always tell the skank whores from the US. Asian pron will always be superior. Even if the girls are the biggest whores in the world, they look like absolute sweethearts. THIS is what we want to see.

Quote:

But from what I hear, I think its either bangbros or Brazzers who also own a tube site and they put competitors videos up for free (full versions not snippets) while only showing snippets of their movies - that is a new low of scummy, even for pornographers , almost on par with the music industry.

I think Brazzers is the parent company of 95% of streaming pron sites.

In the name of "research", I've seen some of these sites. The answer is VERY simple for the paid sites, though it's going to raise their costs:

-Camcorder videos are no longer good enough. HD lifelike film quality is a MUST. That homemade shit doesn't cut it anymore!

Speak for your self -- amateur homemade porn is a million times better than anything professionally done -- webcam stuff is even better...not sure if it's the intimacy (can porn be intimate?!?) of it, or the fact that the girls doing it are doing it because they want to and enjoy it -- not because they are getting paid for it.

Quote:

-Lose the skanks! Get women that are so naturally beautiful that you can't believe they're doing porn! Don't tell me these ladies are hard to find. I mean if you look, it's literally MIND BLOWING how many women these days are willing to do it. I had no idea the industry had become that large.

I agree -- Solution: vote with your wallet -- only pay for the porn that have beautiful women in it.

Pro porn just does not cut it (for the most part) even if the women are beautiful because they are..pros.It's a job for them and at times you can almost "see" them thinking of doing something else in the middle of the scene. A big turn off.

I dont like seeing women getting slapped around or roughed up but rather enjoyng themselves as well, so when you see a scene of a woman who is there ONLY because of the money...meh.

On the other hand check out some of the amateur or semi-amateur stuff and you see women who are there because their eyes light up when you mention sex the way most "normal" women's eyes light up when you mention shoes or shopping. Now if these women are good looking as well...

On the other hand check out some of the amateur or semi-amateur stuff and you see women who are there because their eyes light up when you mention sex the way most "normal" women's eyes light up when you mention shoes or shopping

Do you honestly believe that those amateur videos are real? So you buy that every girl that shows up for a "modelling interview" or "calendar shoot" is down for filming hardcore dirty fullblown unprotected porn?

Sorry, I really hope I didnt burst your bubble and ruin free amateur porn for the rest of your life. But alittle reality goes a long way...its good money, and thats why they do it.

Ahhh... This discussion has gone in a direction I didn't expect. (i.e. the quality of porn sites, not the quality of the judges ruling) That said, I'm starting to get a little scared - what's that, three rational decisions in a row regarding internet commerce?

Ahhh... This discussion has gone in a direction I didn't expect. (i.e. the quality of porn sites, not the quality of the judges ruling) That said, I'm starting to get a little scared - what's that, three rational decisions in a row regarding internet commerce?

Why is it judges seem to be rational when hearing porn cases, but seem irrational in other situations? I guess judges like their porn.

On the other hand check out some of the amateur or semi-amateur stuff and you see women who are there because their eyes light up when you mention sex the way most "normal" women's eyes light up when you mention shoes or shopping

Do you honestly believe that those amateur videos are real? So you buy that every girl that shows up for a "modelling interview" or "calendar shoot" is down for filming hardcore dirty fullblown unprotected porn?

Sorry, I really hope I didnt burst your bubble and ruin free amateur porn for the rest of your life. But alittle reality goes a long way...its good money, and thats why they do it.

No, I don't believe that or "bangbus" either.But check out a lot of the girls before they turned pro... when they really liked what they were doing and the money was a bonus. Now its more about the money and the attitude is just spread the legs and wait till the guy finishes.

But check out a lot of the girls before they turned pro... when they really liked what they were doing and the money was a bonus. Now its more about the money and the attitude is just spread the legs and wait till the guy finishes.

Uh, it's ALWAYS been "about the money" for the producers and distributors of these films. Good for those girls who've realized they're being used, hopefully willingly, and are getting a larger 'piece' of the action (and not just as a metaphor for sex, but as cash money, something that pays the bills).

Bottom line is there's always someone willing to give away talents and/or services (e.g. sex, appearing in a porno, etc) for FREE that others want to charge for; that's exactly the point of the case above, since the porn producer filed suit over it!

Maybe he didn't realize the Court was giving him a taste of the same medicine he no doubt used as a threat against the girls appearing in his 'productions': there's always someone willing to 'give it away', and none of us aren't easily replaceable.

While the plaintiff found the verdict hard to swallow, I'm quite sure he'll find another way to penetrate the market. If not, the ending may be a bit premature for his business; regardless, I hope in the end both parties can come out satisfied. In all seriousness, you cannot expect for someone else to not find a better way to do a business that will get more clients. People like free. They always have.

But check out a lot of the girls before they turned pro... when they really liked what they were doing and the money was a bonus. Now its more about the money and the attitude is just spread the legs and wait till the guy finishes.

Uh, it's ALWAYS been "about the money" for the producers and distributors of these films. Good for those girls who've realized they're being used, hopefully willingly, and are getting a larger 'piece' of the action (and not just as a metaphor for sex, but as cash money, something that pays the bills).

Bottom line is there's always someone willing to give away talents and/or services (e.g. sex, appearing in a porno, etc) for FREE that others want to charge for; that's exactly the point of the case above, since the porn producer filed suit over it!

Maybe he didn't realize the Court was giving him a taste of the same medicine he no doubt used as a threat against the girls appearing in his 'productions': there's always someone willing to 'give it away', and none of us aren't easily replaceable.

I have no problems with the talent earning more $$, I think they deserve it more than the mostly sleazy (?) people who live off their work.

I'm just saying its my _personal preference_ to see the girls who actually like doing porn for the sex rather than _just for_ the money... and thats harder to get via pro porn than amateur and semi amateur porn IMHO anyway.

But to each their own, some people get off to seeing an old guy getting beat up by a broom wielded by a big breasted woman in leather - I don't understand that so I am not offended or upset if you don't understand why I like my porn the way I do.

Glad to hear yet another stupid lawsuit has failed. IIRC, running afoul of SLAPP should mean that they have to pay Redtube's legal expenses.

skicow wrote:

NuSkoolTone wrote:

-Camcorder videos are no longer good enough. HD lifelike film quality is a MUST. That homemade shit doesn't cut it anymore!

Speak for your self -- amateur homemade porn is a million times better than anything professionally done -- webcam stuff is even better...not sure if it's the intimacy (can porn be intimate?!?) of it, or the fact that the girls doing it are doing it because they want to and enjoy it -- not because they are getting paid for it.

This is seriously the stupidest lawsuit I have ever heard of. I think the SLAPP label is very appropriate. This is, like others have mentioned, the equivalent of Universal suing youtube because youtube provides free video. Its not even like they are accusing redtube of hosting copyrighted video; just video in general. Hell, why dont I just sue the rest of the world for costing me billions of dollars in damages by being things that people can look at instead of me.

For it to be predatory pricing there has to be some sort of end game. Predatory pricing, pretty much by definition, is selling below cost with the intent of driving competition out of business so you are free to jack prices way up afterwards without competition. It's illegal because in the long run it hurts the consumer, not because it hurts someone's business model, or feelings. It's pretty clear they aren't trying to corner the market on internet pornography, so the complaint is silly.

On the other hand check out some of the amateur or semi-amateur stuff and you see women who are there because their eyes light up when you mention sex the way most "normal" women's eyes light up when you mention shoes or shopping

Do you honestly believe that those amateur videos are real? So you buy that every girl that shows up for a "modelling interview" or "calendar shoot" is down for filming hardcore dirty fullblown unprotected porn?

Sorry, I really hope I didnt burst your bubble and ruin free amateur porn for the rest of your life. But alittle reality goes a long way...its good money, and thats why they do it.

Do you really believe none of those amateur videos are real? (Look, I can do that too! ) I don't know where you're getting the "modelling interview" bit from. Amateur videos means stuff taken in the bedroom on a camcorder, or folks sitting in front of their webcam, nowadays.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.